Yeah, well, maybe a little over the top. It was the "cynic" charge, I think.
My point was that some people think this nomination does not live up to a campaign promise. They really, honesty feel betrayed. I grant thatthe promise is subjective, not objective. Now, telling the person who feels betrayed that he should be, because he misinterpreted the promise in the first place, well, that is not going to make the disappointed person any happier. It might make them resent being told their subjective judgement and opinion is unreasonable.
Tell me, Cboldt, do you find safety in numbers?
I don't understand your point.
The promise is not subjective to the President.
Bush would be the most reliable interpreter of the Contructionist promise.
I grant that the promise is subjective, not objective.
It is not subjective to Bush. You obviously feel betrayed. Knowing that Bush is confident that he has delivered on his promise based on first hand experience, do you suggest that:
1. Bush is being dishonest when he states that Miers is a Constructionist.
2. Bush isn't able to judge whether she is a Constructionist. He's not intelligent enough to discern her make up.
3. Bush lied when he made the Constructionist promise.
Sorry to hear about your anger issue. I kid, I kid.
I concur most heartily. I have no wish to make yours, or others here, disappointment any more egregious. I, myself, have concerns about the direction of this great republic, along with the seemingly uncharted path of Ms Miers.
Perhaps I am just "whistling in the dark" to placate my uneasiness?
"I don't understand your point."
Just as well. Let us let it lay. The heat of this debate, between we Freepers, should not be cause to jaundice our brotherhood.
